[Solar-general] Is WikiLeaks Too Full of Itself?

[Fernando Marcelo]

Es largo y pura mentira, pero vale la pena para ver como los medios
alineados van armando un personaje ficticio para minimizar el hecho de
que exista Wikileaks. Por lo visto no todos los yankis son soretes o
estupidos [ ;-) ] como se puede leer en los comentarios.

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/08/26/is-wikileaks-too-full-of-itself.html

Have the activists behind WikiLeaks—and in particular the Web site's
founder, Julian Assange—become intoxicated by their own myth? Two
recent events involving the now internationally watched Assange and
the Web site seem to indicate that this is the case.

WikiLeaks proclaims lofty goals. "Since July 2007, we have worked
across the globe to obtain, publish and defend [sensitive] materials,
and, also, to fight in the legal and political spheres for the broader
principles on which our work is based: the integrity of our common
historical record and the rights of all peoples to create new history.
We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced
corruption, better government and stronger democracies." The personal
aims proclaimed by Assange, WikiLeaks' floppy-haired face to the
world, are even more grandiose: "I enjoy creating systems on a grand
scale, and I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy
crushing bastards," Assange told the German magazine Der Spiegel in an
interview last month.

The interview was published as a sidebar to revelations Der Spiegel
published last month about a cache of secret field reports leaked from
the Pentagon charting the U.S. operations in Afghanistan. While many
experts said that the reports contents were quotidian or
underwhelming, Assange offered Spiegel's readers a more expansive
assessment of their importance: "A single body of information, they
eclipse all that has been previously said about Afghanistan. They will
change our perspective on not only the war in Afghanistan, but on all
modern wars."

By granting only the German magazine, London's The Guardian, and The
New York Times advance access to its stash of Afghan war reports,
WikiLeaks and Assange ensured that the material made a big
international news splash, even if experts downplayed its
significance. But two subsequent developments suggest that perhaps
WikiLeaks and Assange—whose activities at the moment appear to be
inextricably entwined—are already failing to live up to their own
exalted standards for truth and transparency and could see their
credibility eroded, if not ultimately destroyed, by their
overindulgence in self-righteousness and hype.

Let's examine WikiLeaks' most recent corporate stunt first. On
Wednesday afternoon, following roughly 12 hours of Internet fanfare,
the website tweeted this item: "LEAK: CIA Red Cell Memorandum on the
United States as an "Exporter of Terrorism". At the link could be
found a CIA paper, stamped "SECRET/NOFORN" ("no foreign nationals"),
that examines the topic: "What if Foreigners See the United States as
an 'Exporter of Terrorism?"

What if? The paper briefly notes that some American citizens have been
implicated in recent Islamic terror plots overseas (a subject
Declassified examined at far greater length last spring). It also
notes that the U.S. in the past has been a home for terrorists of
other ethnicities, including Jewish extremists and the Irish
Republican Army. Without citing any specific secret intelligence
reports, the CIA document, produced by a "Red Team" of analysts whose
mission is unconventional thinking, says that because foreign
governments don't really expect American passport holders to be
terrorists, this might make American citizens attractive recruits to
terror groups seeking fighters for missions outside the United States.
The paper concludes with a warning that, if foreign governments see
more and more Americans implicated in terror plots outside the U.S.,
they might become more reluctant to help American authorities
investigate terror plots directed against the U.S.—for example, by
stalling on U.S. investigation requests or refusing to cooperate with
U.S. extradition or rendition requests.

If you don't find these observations earth-shattering or worthy of a
"SECRET/NOFORN" stamp, you'll probably have a lot of company. The
secret paper's revelations, while perhaps not the sort of thing a
president or CIA director would want to talk about on Meet the Press,
are commonplace thoughts that are voiced by pundits and bloggers every
day, often with a far more ferocious tone than used by the CIA
analysts. The agency's own reaction to the release of the secret paper
came close to a yawn. "These sorts of analytic products—clearly
identified as coming from the Agency's 'Red Cell'—are designed simply
to provoke thought and present different points of view. That's the
kind of thing our government ought to be doing," says George Little, a
CIA spokesman. An American official familiar with the document, who
asked for anonymity when discussing a document which is still
technically classified, added, "This is not exactly a blockbuster
paper." WikiLeaks offered a predictably grandiose reaction to the
CIA's confirmation that the paper was authentic, tweeting: "CIA
usually does not confirm, so CIA likely wants to use Red Cell leak to
push for policy change in US." Ahem. Really?

The second recent development, which is already causing some of
WikiLeaks' own loyal supports to question whether the group is its own
worst enemy is, not surprisingly, the widely publicized
sexual-misconduct investigation of Assange in Sweden. WikiLeaks'
latest tweet on that subject (at the time this story was written)
portrays the most recent developments in the investigation in the most
favorable light possible: "WikiLeaks founder cleared of sex
allegations | AP" The reality, however, as the wire service story
makes clear, and as Declassified reported in greater detail earlier on
Wednesday, is that while Swedish prosecutors have indeed terminated an
investigation that resulted in a warrant for Assange's arrest in
connection with an allegation of rape being issued and then quickly
canceled, a Swedish prosecutor is still investigating Assange in
connection to an allegation of "molestation" and has determined that
there is sufficient reason to order police to interrogate Assange
about the allegations.

Most of Assange's public responses to the Swedish investigation have
been conspiracy-mongering and bluster. On Sunday, Assange told the
Middle Eastern broadcast outlet Al-Jazeera, "It is clearly a smear
campaign. … The only question is who was involved. We can have some
suspicions about who would benefit, but without direct evidence, I
would not be willing to make a direct allegation." He was quoted by
Aftonbladet, a Swedish newspaper, as saying, "I know by experience
that WikiLeaks' enemies will continue to bandy around things even
after they have been renounced. I don't know who's behind this, but we
have been warned that, for example, the Pentagon plans to use dirty
tricks to spoil things for us."

But the Swedish paper also quoted him as saying, somewhat cryptically,
that he had "never, whether in Sweden or in any other country, had sex
with anyone in a way that is not founded on mutual consent." And as
Declassified reported Wednesday, a lawyer representing two women whose
allegations triggered the investigation by Swedish authorities
suggests that not only are his clients standing by their claims, but
that he may well challenge the decision by prosecutors to close the
rape probe of Assange. A person in close contact with other WikiLeaks
activists around Europe, who asked for anonymity when discussing a
sensitive topic, says that many of them were privately concerned that
Assange has continued to spread allegations of dirty tricks and hint
at conspiracies against him without justification. Insiders say that
some people affiliated with the website are already brainstorming
whether there might be some way to persuade their front man to step
aside, or failing that, even to oust him. Given that Assange is the
person who put WikiLeaks on the map, and given that no one appears
more entranced by the aura surrounding WikiLeaks than Assange himself,
that could certainly cause the website considerable anguish about its
own practice of "transparency," "democracy," and "integrity."

Update: Karin Rosander, a spokewoman for Swedish prosecutors, told
Declassified on Thursday, Aug. 26, that authorities had received word
that Assange had agreed to answer police questions about the
“molestation” investigation of him that is still open. She said that
it was unclear when the interrogation would take place, but that it
would likely be within the next few days.